Thread by @GitmoWatch

Need a break from impeachment talk? We have essential testimony on the CIA's former torture program from Dr. James E. Mitchell, live from Guantanamo!

Today begins the first day of testimony from Dr. Mitchell, psychologist key to development of CIA's 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' Questioning begins with @jamesgconnell, lead counsel for @BaluchiGitmo

This week has igher media attendance than most 9/11 pretrial hearings.

https://twitter.com/carolrosenberg/status/1218897181186367488?s=20

Check out @carolrosenberg's background on Mitchell: nytimes.com/2020/01/20/us/…

Mitchell's testimony relates to defense motions to suppress statements made to the FBI by the five defendants after they were held incommunicado for 3.5+ years and tortured by the CIA.

1st 9/11 Judge Pohl tossed the statements as a sanction to government prohibitions on defense from investigating certain aspects of the capital case.

He retired about a week later. #micdrop

The government moved the 2nd 9/11 Judge, Col. Keith Parrella, to reconsider. Parrella ordered defense to file motions to suppress the statements.

He served on the 9/11 bench for about nine months before taking a job leading USMC security of worldwide US embassies.

3rd 9/11 judge, USAF Col W. Shane Cohen assumed the 9/11 case just last June and will decide the motions to suppress ordered by 9/11 Judge II.

The 9/11 pretrial hearings have been hearing testimony from statements suppression witnesses since September 2019.

The trial date is ambitiously scheduled to begin Jan 2021, 19 years after the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo.

MilComs at GTMO discussing classification rules for upcoming testimony. Gov't dropped 34 pg directive late last week limiting questioning by defense, pushing some info into 'national security' category, sort of like super top secret that even the judge can't overrule.

Connell argues there are three categories of information:
1. Unauthorized disclosures
2. Authorized disclosures: Official (from CIA itself)
3. Unofficial authorized disclosures (prepublication review process including books and testimony)

The government can't invoke 'national security' over information already disclosed through either official or unofficial authorization.

For example, Dr. Mitchell wrote a book that went through CIA prepublication review. Questioning based on book shouldn't be limited.

It seems MilComs has a fancy new document camera in the courtroom. You can see pores, individual arm hairs when someone uses it to illustrate notes in warcourt.

Cheryl Bormann for bin Attash argues information that has been through prepublication review, that has been in public domain for literally years, is now, according to the government, determined to be classified under 'national security.'

Walter Ruiz for Hawsawi: In 2008, prosecutor Clay Trivett filed notice that discovery had been provided, they're ready for trial, but they continue design new rules on classification.

This is fundamentally at odds with due process.

Reminder for those interested in viewing the 9/11 pretrial hearings: the public can view proceedings at Ft. Meade and those with Pentagon access can watch at the Pentagon library.

MilComs in 20 minute comfort break before Dr. James E. Mitchell's testimony begins. Back at 11.

Commissions called to order. Dr. James Elmer Mitchell is sworn in. He last testified in @ACLU case Salim et al v. Mitchell

@ACLU The government provided witness Dr. Mitchell with a list of unique functional identifiers (UFIs) of other witnesses for the former CIA Rendition, Detention, Interrogation (RDI) program. The associated names are super top secret, protected under national security privilege.

Mitchell takes issue with the lists, says it identifies people as interrogators who were not interrogators - they were 'debriefers, or targeters, or analysts, or subject matter experts.'

Connell begins questioning by thanking Dr. Mitchell for coming to GTMO to testify; he was not required.

Mitchell shares he came for the victims and victim family members, not for defense counsel.

Connell is going over a few minutes of ground rules regarding classified information and how he'll proceed.

Avoiding classified and national security privileged information is a delicate tango in the 9/11 war court particularly in the constantly changing government's rules.

Connell's questioning begins with Dr. Mitchell's 2016 book, Enhanced Interrogation. Mitchell wants a copy of his book if he's going to be questioned on it.

Mitchell says he doesn't track book sales but thinks 40-50k books have sold.

He assumes he holds a security clearance since he is at Guantanmo testifying.

Mitchell says he is a good steward of classified information and signed a standard non-disclosure agreement.

Mitchell's co-author in Enhanced Interrogation was Bill Harlow, who was the CIA spokesperson from 1997-2004.

Mitchell doesn't want to speak to Harlow's professional role.

Mitchell decided to 'Enhanced Interrogation' after talking to PRB (publication review board).

He says they had a system for reviewing written materials but feels he is not at liberty to disclose.

Interesting, Dr. Mitchell wrote the book WITH the CIA's Publication Review Board - there was a lot of care regarding revealing classified information when writing and publishing this book.

The government is invoking national security privilege over some of the details in book.

Mitchell says he believes PRB and equity holders thoroughly reviewed 'Enhanced Interrogation' for classified information prior to publishing, at least what was determined to be classified at the time, which Mitchell says can change 'as you (Connell) well know.'

Mitchell says there were some pieces of his book the PRB requested he remove for classification concerns.

Jim Harrington, lead counsel for bin al Shibh, was notified the feed at the Pentagon is not steady.

Any Pentagon watchers have an update?

Mitchell published the name of Abu Zubaydah's targeter in his book - he says he specifically asked the publication review board about using the name and it was approved.

Connell: What would you say if you were told 'Enhanced Interrogation' contained classified information?

Mitchell: Buy the publication rights and take it off the market.

Mitchell says he suspected from the beginning he would have to testify but can't recall when he was notified this case. He was not subpoenaed, 'I'm here voluntarily. I'm happy to talk about my role in the program and what the program did.'

Mitchell first met with a prosecutor in this case sometime before Christmas.

They met to prepare for testimony 8 or 9 days. "You've got tens of thousands of documents I've gone through, some of them I've never seen before."

Connell inquires why Mitchell didn't want to meet with him prior to testifying.

Mitchell: You folks have been saying untrue and malicious things about me and Jessen for years, so it shouldn't surprise you that I would want to spend the least amount of time with you.

Connell: Did the prosecution discuss the legal issues at hand with you?

Mitchell's understanding is the defense is trying to get 'FBI statements set aside.'

Connell: Did you have practice examination with the prosecution?

Mitchell: They asked me questions, I provided answers. They didn't give me feedback. The main point was to tell the truth.

That line of questioning is done.

MilComs in lunch recess until 13:15.

Commissions called to order. 9/11 Judge W. Shane Cohen is pretty good about staying on time.

Connell: Regarding your general issue with UFI list - what is misleading about it?

Mitchell: KSM was subjected to 21 days of interrogation, 1300 days of debriefings. This list suggests detainees were subject to EITs every single day of detention.

Mitchell: Debriefers weren't trained or authorized to use EITs so having debriefers listed as interrogators is misleading.

Connell: What does 'interrogator' mean to you?

Mitchell: Questioning an unwilling person to provide info using 'enhanced interrogation techniques' or potential use of EITS.

Debriefers service intel requirements through question and answer only.

CIA debriefers were sometimes subject matter experts. For example, if questions related to WMDs, it would be WMD expert debriefing the detainee on them.

Other CIA debriefers were 'targeters' or 'analysts.'

Mitchell testifies 'transition to full debriefing mode' means interrogators and debriefers would use question and answer methods, not EITs.

Mitchell 'corrects' the list of unique functional identifiers going through each UFI - most of those listed as 'interrogators' Mitchell claims were actually debriefers. He doesn't know many names on the list but notes he may know them as a pseudonym.

Connell: Earlier training was done by NX2, who Mitchell nicknamed New Sheriff, and MA2, is it possible some that you don't know were trained in this earlier training?

Mitchell: Possible. I don't have that information.

Dr. James Mitchell first met with Ammar al Baluchi at Location 7 after enhanced interrogation techniques were used. Al Baluchi wasn't at the top of Mitchell's 'list.'

Sometimes Mitchell would 'stop in' to see how detainees were doing since they were held in solitary confinement. He calls some of these meetings 'fireside chats.'

Connell and Mitchell detailing how Mitchell got involved in the CIA RDI program.

'DF7' told Mitchell to go to CIA HQ building, escorted him to CIA CTC. There they had a meeting chaired by Jose Rodriguez.

SASC identified Jonathan Fredman as Chief Counsel of CTC at the time.

Connell wants to know if Fredman was also in the meeting. Government is invoking national security privilege over who was at the seminal meeting.

Connell's line of questioning relates to the origins of 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' He argues the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) was positioning itself towards using EITs before Mitchell and Jessen were ever involved.

Mitchell is often painted as a rogue actor and 'architect' of a torture program, but the EIT program was was actually an institutional bureaucracy with many layers and people who were part of a larger torture machine.

At some point, an institutional decision was made, not by Mitchell or Jessen, regarding extra legal interrogations of Abu Zubaydah. That decision eventually leads to meeting at CIA which led to EITS and the larger RDI program.

Mitchell describes the April 2002 CTC meeting as a 'room full of heads.' He didn't quiz people on their rolls. There were likely senior people in attendance. Mitchell IDs UFIs in attendance: WA7, DF7, PJ1. EX2 may have been there.

The CTC meeting occurred right after Abu Zubaydah's capture in Faisalabad, Pakistan on 29 March 2002.

An excerpt from Robert Grenier's book, 88 Days to Kandahar....

“March 28, 2002, Dave laid out the plan for the visiting senators. After ground investigations led by the ISI, we had winnowed the number of targets in Faisalabad to fourteen. We had identified another three related locations well outside town. All would be hit simultaneously.”

Connell: In April 2002 were you designing enhanced interrogation techniques, or making policy in any way?

Mitchell: (laughing) No.

Mitchell's perspective is there wasn't any churning evolution of interrogation techniques before he got involved.

Mitchell tries to provide context to the 'gloves are off' comment. It was just after 9/11, they were trying to stop a nuclear attack. They were doing anything legally allowed to do in order to stop the next catastrophic attack.

Additional context, green badgers don't run the CIA, blue badgers do. Blue badgers are federal employees. Mitchell describes it as kind of like a caste system. Fed contractors don't have the same authority as blue badge fed employees.

Drs. Mitchell and Jessen were contractors

Mitchell: It wasn't my program or the CIA's; it was America's mission - we were trying to stop the next attack. I think the CIA was at the tip of the spear.

.@lisahajjar and @__gabbymiller are also live-tweeting the 9/11 testimony today. Check them out!

@lisahajjar @__gabbymiller Mitchell first met Abu Zubaydah at a hospital. He described Zubaydah's injuries as grave, that he would have died if he hadn't been treated by someone who flew over with Mitchell et al.

Zubaydah was shot leaping from one building to another during the operation that ended Zubaydah's freedom.

He had a massive leg wound, Mitchell describes as a tunneling wound doctors had to open up.

Ali Soufan, who will be testifying at some point, was also present in the hospital at the same time as Mitchell and Abu Zubaydah.

Mitchell says AZ identified a photo of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad as 'Mukhtar,' the 'mastermind of Sept 11th.'

Zubaydah thought he was dying and providing 'tidbits' of information to the FBI.

Mitchell: I can't read Soufan's mind, nor would I want to. Perhaps there was some rapport building involved in the exchanges with Abu Zubaydah, hand holding, etc.

From March Thiessen's book, Courting Disaster: “Considering his condition, this was hardly a standard FBI interview. His circumstance—lying in a hospital bed, dependent on his captors for pain medication and life-sustaining care—was by its very nature coercive."

Mitchell agrees questioning someone under Abu Zubaydah's conditions could be considered psychologically coercive.

MilComs in 30 minute recess - back at 15:45.

Check out @carolrosenberg's take on Dr. James Mitchell's testimony thus far: nytimes.com/2020/01/21/us/…

@carolrosenberg A slight technical delay in reporting...when in GTMO, #MilComs called to order.

Connell is questioning Dr. Mitchell on the three member behavioral interrogation team. So much of this questioning relies on documents sourced through FOIA releases rather than government produced discovery.

Mitchell describes learned helplessness paradigm.

If a net a dog is held in is electrified, most dogs would eventually lie down and not try to escape.

His perspective is that learned helplessness diminishes after an individual understands they are not actually helpless.

Mitchell though, clarifies his position that dogs should be catching frisbees, not part of shock experiment.

Good to know.

Connell inquires about the battle rhythm of the day - Mitchell is unfamiliar with term.

The military never uses one word when they can use two, explains it means schedule.

Mitchell says intel analysts would brief interrogators on intelligence requirements and supporting intelligence reports/briefings - often sent to CIA by FBI.

Mitchell: CIA was never interested in prosecuting; they'd walk right up to line of what was legal, put their toes on it, lean over. FBI wanted to stop attacks but were easily distracted.

Perhaps if the CIA had been more interested in prosecuting these defendants, we wouldn't still be in pretrial hearings 18 years after the event. Instead, they tortured these five men and held them incommunicado for 3.5+ years.

#JusticeDelayedIsJusticeDenied

FBI fully participated in using sleep deprivation as a technique at the time. Ali Soufan objected to everything (coercive techniques) but they participated in Abu Zubaydah's interrogations.

Mitchell doesn't remember who said it, but one agent said sleep deprivation was fine as long as the interrogator doing the questioning stayed up as long as the detainee.

Connell clarifies there were rotating shifts of interrogations.

Mitchell on events that precipitated Abu Zubaydah's isolation. An agent called AZ a 'mother fucker,' followed by 'son of a bitch' which equated his mother to a dog.

Mitchell: At that point Abu Zubaydah leaned back in his chair like a 'street thug,' glared at them with his one eye and told the interrogator to go home and have babies.

Mitchell describes Abu Zubaydah as 'rabid about @pepsi.'

He claims the FBI tried to bribe AZ to comply with questioning with a pepsi to which he responded: 'What makes you think I would betray my God for a Pepsi?'

@pepsi Connell questions Mitchell on the mock burial idea.

Mitchell: Yeah, that was my idea.

Describes it as a good cop, bad cop scenario/threat and rescue.

Jose Rodriguez describes the scenario in his book, Hard Measures as bringing in an FBI 'clean team' that didn't know what Zubaydah had already said. Mitchell believes Rodriguez learned of this idea from him.

Connell is digging into the early efforts to develop coercive measures, specifically a July 2002 meeting about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Soufan wasn't there, Gaudin was.

Mitchell previously testified on this in Salim et al v. Mitchell.

Mitchell recommended use of SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) techniques IF coercive techniques were to be used - he argues techniques have no long-term effects (broken eardrum or leg).

Keep in mind military members go through SERE training *voluntarily*.

Mitchell testifies he tried to stop multiple interrogations by UFI NX2, who he nicknamed 'new sheriff.' Mitchell says techniques were unauthorized.

Regarding phrase 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' the role of euphemism is dehumanizing. "It's one thing to say we kill grandmothers and babies, another to call it collateral damage."

Mitchell: Some SERE techniques weren't recommended as EITs because they caused some pilots to be 'grounded' due to injuries suffered in training. For instance, 'walling' wrong can lead to detainee's head hitting wall.

Note: Ammar al Baluchi has brain trauma from CIA walling.

Mitchell tearing up, "whatever personal consequences I would live with, I believed there was a genuine threat of an imminent attack; I thought my moral obligation to protect American lives outweighed temporary discomfort of terrorists.

I'd get up today and do it again."

Connell: Were you contemplating these techniques for multiple detainees or just AZ?

Mitchell: I believed AZ was the linchpin because he'd provide the puzzle pieces to disrupt other plots.

Goes on to say as a contractor he was paid by the day.

($1,800/day to be exact)

That ends today's testimony of Dr. James E. Mitchell. We'll be back with more coverage live from Guantanamo tomorrow at 0900.